TR Memescape

Power is a drug and only Ksen is immune, but that is because he delights in being a vehicle for popular sentiment. Febble is nuts and doesnt realize her power hunger. Ty is a moron and thus simply blends into the status quo which guarantees his privilege, however petty. Supernaut is clueless and just delights in his tiara.

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask. When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Incommensurability is an exact a analog for Morton's Demon.

Love is like a magic penny if you hold it tight you won't have any if you give it away you'll have so many they'll be rolling all over the floor

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask. When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.

Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.

Love is like a magic penny if you hold it tight you won't have any if you give it away you'll have so many they'll be rolling all over the floor

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask. When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.

Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.

Predictability is one area that Kuhn only hints at that we now take for granted, in his illustration of how paradigms can rapidly shift of the white spot in the middle of a shadow cast by a disk. Now I can't recall to what degree Popper mentions it, although he was jousting at the positivists wrt verifiability iirc

Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask. When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.

Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.

Predictability is one area that Kuhn only hints at that we now take for granted, in his illustration of how paradigms can rapidly shift of the white spot in the middle of a shadow cast by a disk. Now I can't recall to what degree Popper mentions it, although he was jousting at the positivists wrt verifiability iirc

Apparently Kuhn thought that each paradigm was closer to some objective truth or maybe it was popper who thought that. Anyway they had a sort of a bitter argument about it.

Love is like a magic penny if you hold it tight you won't have any if you give it away you'll have so many they'll be rolling all over the floor

Done with the main book. His ending on the themes of communities and modeling scientific progression as evolution were themes that I felt under addressed in the book (although both are the primary themes of Hull [1988]). I am now into the 1969 postscript and am pleased he is taking on the issue of scientific communities head on.

Done. I liked the extended discussion of Incommensurability in the postscript

That was the 1971 essay?

I tend to think of incommensurability as the big idea to take away from the whole thing. And that normal science is a good thing, not a bad thing. Postmodernist social theorists did a lot to make his point unclear but if you go to the source, it always seems to clear it up for me.

Just thinking about it yesterday with a friend who is doing a PhD in her early 50s (probably inspired by Pingu) and I mentioned Kuhn and she said something like what she liked about it was the freedom to think differently he offered. Basically, if I can summarize her point, his argument isn't all that useful standing alone but it inspires people to think in super novel ways about knowledge. Just as most creative thought isn't useful, most of what he inspires isn't useful but every so often it ends up being dramatic and profound.

To me, I definitely make a box defining boxes out of it. For me any idea with solid recursive self reference is worth keeping around if only in the same way you keep little riffs around and one day find the song they go perfectly with.

Love is like a magic penny if you hold it tight you won't have any if you give it away you'll have so many they'll be rolling all over the floor